MUKESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. SENIOR BUILDERS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This consumer complaint has been filed under Sec. 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties in not handing over possession of a shop booked in their project even after payment of over 80% of the sale consideration.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that the complainant had booked a shop on 17/12/2009 in the Senior Mall, M.G. Road, Gurgaon, Haryana which was promoted by opposite parties no. 1 and 2. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the complainant and the opposite party no. 2 as per which a sale consideration of Rs.1,33,33,500.00 was agreed upon for a shop measuring 888.9 sq. ft. @ Rs.15,000.00 per sq. ft. Between 17/12/2009 and 11/3/2010 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,15,90,000.00 in instalments which is over 80% of the sale consideration. Vide Letter dtd. 13/3/2010 shop no. UF-3 was allotted to the complainant. This letter was signed by one Vijay Dixit, M.D. of the opposite party no. 1. On 6/10/2010, 2/6/2011, 11/1/2012 and 22/8/2012, the complainant wrote letters to opposite party no. 1 seeking possession of the shop and completion of necessary formalities and handing over of the shop. As no response was received, he issued a legal notice on 24/9/2013 which was not replied to. It is alleged that the shop has not been handed over nor have any documents been executed. Opposite party had promised to hand over possession within 12 months failing which he undertook to pay interest as compensation @ 24% p.a which is alleged to have not been done. The complainant has approached this Commission and prayed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The complaint was resisted by way of written statement by the opposite party no. 1. The averments in the complaint have been denied and it has been stated that opposite party no. 1 was not a confirming party to the MOU in question. It is contended that the payment was made by the complainant solely to opposite party no. 2 with whom opposite party no. 1 had entered into a Joint Venture on 21/8/2009 for the completion of its project Senior Mall on M.G. Road, Gurgaon. It is contended that as per Clause 16 of the Joint Venture agreement, the payment of 24% p.a. compensation was the liability of the opposite party no. 2. However, this joint venture was terminated by a registered deed of cancellation before the Sub Registrar, Gurgaon on 25/1/2010 and, therefore, opposite party no. 1 had issued a letter dtd. 13/3/2010 to the complainant offering possession of the shop in question subject to payment of the balance amount. It is contended that the liability of opposite party no. 2 cannot be transferred to opposite party no. 1 and that opposite party no. 1 has itself been a sufferer at the hands of opposite party no. 2.